Literature DB >> 21401248

Perceived susceptibility to breast cancer moderates the effect of gain- and loss-framed messages on use of screening mammography.

Kristel M Gallagher1, John A Updegraff, Alexander J Rothman, Linda Sims.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the role of three distinct beliefs about risk (risks associated with screening, construal of the function of screening as health-affirming or illness-detecting, and perceived susceptibility to breast cancer) in moderating women's responses to framed messages that promote mammography.
DESIGN: Three hundred fifty-five women recruited from an inner city hospital, nonadherent to guidelines for receiving annual screening mammograms,were randomly assigned to view a gain- or loss-framed video message about the importance of mammography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mammography screening was self-reported at a 3-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Only perceived susceptibility to breast cancer significantly moderated the effect of message framing on screening. Women with average and higher levels of perceived susceptibility for breast cancer were significantly more likely to report screening after viewing a loss-framed message compared to a gain-framed message. No effects of framing on reported screening were observed for women with lower levels of perceived susceptibility.
CONCLUSION: The study identifies a key role for perceived susceptibility in shaping responses to framed messages that promote cancer screenings. (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21401248      PMCID: PMC4679369          DOI: 10.1037/a0022264

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Psychol        ISSN: 0278-6133            Impact factor:   4.267


  31 in total

1.  Prevalence and correlates of repeat mammography among women aged 55-79 in the Year 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  William Rakowski; Nancy Breen; Helen Meissner; Barbara K Rimer; Sally W Vernon; Melissa A Clark; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  The impact of mailing psychoeducational materials to women with abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  C Lerman; E Ross; A Boyce; P M Gorchov; R McLaughlin; B Rimer; P Engstrom
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 3.  Accuracy of self-reports of Pap and mammography screening compared to medical record: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michelle Howard; Gina Agarwal; Alice Lytwyn
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  Confirmatory analysis of opinions regarding the pros and cons of mammography.

Authors:  W Rakowski; M R Andersen; A M Stoddard; N Urban; B K Rimer; D S Lane; S A Fox; M E Costanza
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior.

Authors:  B E Meyerowitz; S Chaiken
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1987-03

6.  Perceived ambiguity about screening mammography recommendations: association with future mammography uptake and perceptions.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Sarah C Kobrin; William M P Klein; William W Davis; Michael Stefanek; Steven H Taplin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  The effects of message framing on mammography utilization.

Authors:  S M Banks; P Salovey; S Greener; A J Rothman; A Moyer; J Beauvais; E Epel
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.267

8.  Mammography use among women as a function of age and patient involvement in decision-making.

Authors:  R C Burack; J George; J G Gurney
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women.

Authors:  Anne Marie Apanovitch; Danielle McCarthy; Peter Salovey
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.267

View more
  24 in total

1.  Influenza vaccination acceptance among diverse pregnant women and its impact on infant immunization.

Authors:  Paula M Frew; Siyu Zhang; Diane S Saint-Victor; Ashley C Schade; Samantha Benedict; Maral Banan; Xiang Ren; Saad B Omer
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Message framing for health: moderation by perceived susceptibility and motivational orientation in a diverse sample of Americans.

Authors:  John A Updegraff; Cameron Brick; Amber S Emanuel; Roy E Mintzer; David K Sherman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  An affective booster moderates the effect of gain- and loss-framed messages on behavioral intentions for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein; Laura E Zajac; Stephanie R Land; Bruce S Ling
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2011-08-18

4.  To frame or not to frame? Effects of message framing and risk priming on mouth rinse use and intention in an adult population-based sample.

Authors:  Gert-Jan de Bruijn
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2018-09-21

5.  Message framing strategies to increase influenza immunization uptake among pregnant African American women.

Authors:  Heather A Marsh; Fauzia Malik; Eve Shapiro; Saad B Omer; Paula M Frew
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2014-09

6.  Parental Support for HPV Vaccination Mandates Among African Americans: The Impact of Message Framing and Consideration of Future Consequences.

Authors:  Xiaoli Nan; Kelly Daily; Adam Richards; Cheryl Holt
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2018-07-06

7.  Breast Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Call for Development and Validation of Patient-Oriented Shared Decision-Making Tools.

Authors:  Sarina Schrager; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  Factors associated with maternal influenza immunization decision-making. Evidence of immunization history and message framing effects.

Authors:  Paula M Frew; Lauren E Owens; Diane S Saint-Victor; Samantha Benedict; Siyu Zhang; Saad B Omer
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Does perceived risk influence the effects of message framing? A new investigation of a widely held notion.

Authors:  Jonathan Van 't Riet; Anthony D Cox; Dena Cox; Gregory D Zimet; Gert-Jan De Bruijn; Bas Van den Putte; Hein De Vries; Marieke Q Werrij; Robert A C Ruiter
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2014-03-27

10.  Message Framing, Perceived Susceptibility, and Intentions to Vaccinate Children Against HPV Among African American Parents.

Authors:  Xiaoli Nan; Kelly Madden; Adam Richards; Cheryl Holt; Min Qi Wang; Kate Tracy
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2015-12-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.